From what I gather, and without sounding too conspiratorial, the GOP and Big Business’ reason for breaking up unions seems to be to take away the “voice of the people” by eliminating the middle class. Thus, having the ability to win more elections.
Karl Rove spoke of a one party government back in 2000 and 2004. Ideally for the GOP, having no union means taking the backbone not only of the middle class but also taking the big money that supports Dems and Independents at elections.
I’ll write more on this in a later post.
IN 2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.
Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it’s not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama’s economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama’s election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.
The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically since the mid-’70s—far more in the US than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.
Second, American politicians don’t care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early ’90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that’s not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don’t respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that’s not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don’t respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.
There are crazies, and then there are the craziest!
An audience member at a town hall hosted by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on Tuesday asked the Tea Party congressman who was going to shoot President Barack Obama.
The unidentified town hall attendee’s question got a big laugh from the audience, reports Blake Aued of the Athens Banner-Herald.
But Broun didn’t exactly condemn the remark, according to the newspaper report.
“The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year,” Broun said in response to the question. “Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”
Broun had asked the audience who had driven the farthest to be at the meeting and let the winner ask the first question, according to the newspaper. The reporter couldn’t hear the question himself, but Broun’s press secretary confirmed that the question was about when someone was going to shoot the President.
“Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” Broun’s press secretary Jessica Morris told Aued.
You may remember Broun as the member of Congress who skipped the State of the Union Address in favor of live Tweeting about Obama’s “socialism” from his office.
Has there ever been a time in our history in which a first lady was attacked so viciously on the airwaves?
I’ve never seen a pundit attack a First Lady with such vitriol in my life. And to think Michelle Obama is taking up a cause that’s as uncontroversial as can be. She’s trying to protect our children from the hell that obesity can cause on their lives. Maybe he’s afraid that she’ll turn our children into radical Muslim sleeper agents if they try to eat healthier?
For the people who still can’t stand the fact that someone with a darker hue and a non-Anglo name is in the White House, it must be frustrating, looking for something to denigrate the woman who married him. And yet, they persist.
What can be said about Michelle Obama? That she’s a Harvard-educated lawyer, half of a parenting team that has produced, by all indications (since the Obamas have wisely gone to great lengths to protect their children’s privacy) two well-behaved and adorable girls, and that she is leading an important mission against childhood obesity. Really, is there anything offensive in that personal resume? [See photos of first lady Michelle Obama.] Oh, but it seems there is, in the eyes of the Obama-haters and just the haters in general.
First, we have Rush Limbaugh, who, as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank notes, bizarrely slams the first lady for daring to eat barbecue and for not looking like the picture of health she’s seeking to promote. “Our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue,” said Limbaugh, who, Milbank points out, is on the doughy side himself.
This is unfathomable and as you’ve probably noticed, the GOP< Tea Partiers and most of the media has been silent. Can you imagine if a Liberal commentator like say Al Franken had attacked Laura Bush over her concerns for better education and women’s health? It would be on a 24/7 loop of indignity from the right. And rightly so I might add. Limbaugh is being more disgusting as usual and I think ‘boycotts are in order this time around. Especially since he’s a lying sack of sh*t. Continue reading here…